Kamala Harris' Hidden Strength: She Adapts to Your Expectations
Following Chicago's indication, Harris' esteemed nomination provides her with the opportunity to embody whatever aspirations people hold for her.
TroibNews 
They say you gotta dance with the one that brung you.
Now, American politics presents us with the Kamala Harris exception.
The traditional notion that politicians accumulate significant debts to specific constituencies and influential individuals during their rise doesn’t seem to apply to Harris in the same manner. This unique aspect of her ascent provides her with distinct advantages for the time being.
Emerging from the convention in Chicago, Harris has amassed a coalition as broad as any Democratic nominee in recent memory. Everyone there claimed her as their own, with arguably the exception of President Joe Biden’s family and a few of his staffers. The circumstances surrounding her rise—her replacement of the aging incumbent, the absence of a primary challenge, the singular focus on defeating former President Donald Trump, and the swift unification of Democratic power brokers around her candidacy in less than 48 hours last month—mean that no one can assert they have been pivotal in her journey thus far.
What does it signify to owe few explicit debts? You can orchestrate a convention, like the one in Chicago, that avoids the identity politics or tensions over Gaza that have divided your party in recent years. You maintain ambiguity on policy positions when necessary—no one is positioned to withhold support or an endorsement in exchange for policy promises. You can navigate your agenda as you see fit: hence the new centrist, strong-on-crime, strong-on-defense, strong-on-business Harris, who did not previously highlight these traits to the nation before this summer.
Most remarkably: you manage to project yourself as a newcomer. The other individual, in an unprecedented reversal, transitioned from defeating the aging incumbent Biden to becoming the aging incumbent.
The Harris campaign has nine weeks to implement this strategy against Trump.
The party is so relieved to have a candidate with a viable chance of winning that those within her camp seem unconcerned about her elusive policy positions. Following her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago, I encountered a Third Wayer who praised the centrist policies and the absence of typical left-wing rhetoric. Bill Clinton or even John McCain could have delivered that speech. Defense hawks appreciated her use of “lethal” to underscore the significance of American military power. Leftists admired the patriotism expressed by the daughter of immigrants. A tech entrepreneur noted that she might be the first presidential nominee to reference the “founders,” as well as AI and technology. Her call for an “opportunity economy” was vague enough to garner cross-party satisfaction.
Although Harris has strong ties to California and financial backing from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, many major Democratic donors do not know her well. Prior to her nomination, there were concerns regarding her fundraising capacity. A close friend, a prominent bundler, mentioned that recent weeks were spent “on building bridges” to the establishment donor and policy circles. Someone who attended a recent fundraiser with Doug Emhoff remarked, with admiration, that Harris’s husband was still overcoming “his imposter syndrome.” They are newcomers on such a grand stage.
The influx of campaign funds in the past month has alleviated any worries about her fundraising abilities—she did it without needing to develop an extensive governing plan. As the “alternative” without much definition, Harris raised more money ($520 million) faster than anyone ever. In just ten days, she drew contributions from more donors than Joe Biden did in 15 months of campaigning.
“The way this played out so quickly, and so late, averted the usual process of building support over a drawn-out campaign,” observed David Pepper, former head of the Ohio Democratic Party. “Which could be liberating. She would enter the presidency with a lot fewer IOUs than the previous guys. They pile up in a primary, which Harris didn’t have to win.”
This freedom has certainly been beneficial for her at this point in the campaign. Barack Obama once wrote, “I serve as the blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This line from Obama to Harris became a recurring theme in Chicago. The parallels between the historic candidacies of the first African-American president and the first woman of mixed race are obvious.
However, the distinctions are also significant. In 2008, Obama was the outsider insurgent whose personal story and ideological stance were vividly defined through his writings and a lengthy primary battle against Hillary Clinton. He needed to carve out a space to Clinton’s left by defining himself through specific policies (opposition to the Iraq war, a commitment to negotiate with Iran, comprehensive health-care reform), which later became fodder for attacks from his GOP opponent McCain. In contrast, Harris stands out as an insider who is, remarkably, less defined than Obama was at this stage 16 years ago. While she is part of the Biden administration and has reinforced ties with the party base for over three years, she is largely free to formulate her own agenda, unburdened by the commitments that typically arise from a primary contest.
While Democrats projected their aspirations of national recovery onto Obama, what is projected onto Harris is a keen desire to keep Trump at bay. The 2008 election for Democrats centered around their candidate; this year, it revolves around the opposing figure.
The abbreviated, European-style campaign will likely see Harris attempt to maintain the guise of an outsider. Trump will endeavor to force her to take ownership of the Biden legacy and demand concrete policy details. His campaign is pushing for more specific policy-oriented speeches, similar to those Harris gave before the convention on the economy and price controls, which prompted his “Comrade Kamala” nickname to gain traction. Her recent joint interview with vice presidential candidate Tim Walz didn’t provide any substantial targets. However, she does have a tendency to speak at length when there isn’t much to convey, which could be a vulnerability in the upcoming debate. This summer, she has been effective in striking a balance between being both clear and nebulous.
There lies greater potential for her in remaining undefined and loosely connected throughout the race. If she wins, however, her lack of a specific mandate could reignite Democratic factions, leading to a tumultuous start to a Harris presidency.
The advantage of having a partner for this dance is that you can anticipate your moves upon arrival. This is a dilemma that Democrats would certainly welcome.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
Now, American politics presents us with the Kamala Harris exception.
The traditional notion that politicians accumulate significant debts to specific constituencies and influential individuals during their rise doesn’t seem to apply to Harris in the same manner. This unique aspect of her ascent provides her with distinct advantages for the time being.
Emerging from the convention in Chicago, Harris has amassed a coalition as broad as any Democratic nominee in recent memory. Everyone there claimed her as their own, with arguably the exception of President Joe Biden’s family and a few of his staffers. The circumstances surrounding her rise—her replacement of the aging incumbent, the absence of a primary challenge, the singular focus on defeating former President Donald Trump, and the swift unification of Democratic power brokers around her candidacy in less than 48 hours last month—mean that no one can assert they have been pivotal in her journey thus far.
What does it signify to owe few explicit debts? You can orchestrate a convention, like the one in Chicago, that avoids the identity politics or tensions over Gaza that have divided your party in recent years. You maintain ambiguity on policy positions when necessary—no one is positioned to withhold support or an endorsement in exchange for policy promises. You can navigate your agenda as you see fit: hence the new centrist, strong-on-crime, strong-on-defense, strong-on-business Harris, who did not previously highlight these traits to the nation before this summer.
Most remarkably: you manage to project yourself as a newcomer. The other individual, in an unprecedented reversal, transitioned from defeating the aging incumbent Biden to becoming the aging incumbent.
The Harris campaign has nine weeks to implement this strategy against Trump.
The party is so relieved to have a candidate with a viable chance of winning that those within her camp seem unconcerned about her elusive policy positions. Following her acceptance speech at the Democratic convention in Chicago, I encountered a Third Wayer who praised the centrist policies and the absence of typical left-wing rhetoric. Bill Clinton or even John McCain could have delivered that speech. Defense hawks appreciated her use of “lethal” to underscore the significance of American military power. Leftists admired the patriotism expressed by the daughter of immigrants. A tech entrepreneur noted that she might be the first presidential nominee to reference the “founders,” as well as AI and technology. Her call for an “opportunity economy” was vague enough to garner cross-party satisfaction.
Although Harris has strong ties to California and financial backing from Hollywood and Silicon Valley, many major Democratic donors do not know her well. Prior to her nomination, there were concerns regarding her fundraising capacity. A close friend, a prominent bundler, mentioned that recent weeks were spent “on building bridges” to the establishment donor and policy circles. Someone who attended a recent fundraiser with Doug Emhoff remarked, with admiration, that Harris’s husband was still overcoming “his imposter syndrome.” They are newcomers on such a grand stage.
The influx of campaign funds in the past month has alleviated any worries about her fundraising abilities—she did it without needing to develop an extensive governing plan. As the “alternative” without much definition, Harris raised more money ($520 million) faster than anyone ever. In just ten days, she drew contributions from more donors than Joe Biden did in 15 months of campaigning.
“The way this played out so quickly, and so late, averted the usual process of building support over a drawn-out campaign,” observed David Pepper, former head of the Ohio Democratic Party. “Which could be liberating. She would enter the presidency with a lot fewer IOUs than the previous guys. They pile up in a primary, which Harris didn’t have to win.”
This freedom has certainly been beneficial for her at this point in the campaign. Barack Obama once wrote, “I serve as the blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” This line from Obama to Harris became a recurring theme in Chicago. The parallels between the historic candidacies of the first African-American president and the first woman of mixed race are obvious.
However, the distinctions are also significant. In 2008, Obama was the outsider insurgent whose personal story and ideological stance were vividly defined through his writings and a lengthy primary battle against Hillary Clinton. He needed to carve out a space to Clinton’s left by defining himself through specific policies (opposition to the Iraq war, a commitment to negotiate with Iran, comprehensive health-care reform), which later became fodder for attacks from his GOP opponent McCain. In contrast, Harris stands out as an insider who is, remarkably, less defined than Obama was at this stage 16 years ago. While she is part of the Biden administration and has reinforced ties with the party base for over three years, she is largely free to formulate her own agenda, unburdened by the commitments that typically arise from a primary contest.
While Democrats projected their aspirations of national recovery onto Obama, what is projected onto Harris is a keen desire to keep Trump at bay. The 2008 election for Democrats centered around their candidate; this year, it revolves around the opposing figure.
The abbreviated, European-style campaign will likely see Harris attempt to maintain the guise of an outsider. Trump will endeavor to force her to take ownership of the Biden legacy and demand concrete policy details. His campaign is pushing for more specific policy-oriented speeches, similar to those Harris gave before the convention on the economy and price controls, which prompted his “Comrade Kamala” nickname to gain traction. Her recent joint interview with vice presidential candidate Tim Walz didn’t provide any substantial targets. However, she does have a tendency to speak at length when there isn’t much to convey, which could be a vulnerability in the upcoming debate. This summer, she has been effective in striking a balance between being both clear and nebulous.
There lies greater potential for her in remaining undefined and loosely connected throughout the race. If she wins, however, her lack of a specific mandate could reignite Democratic factions, leading to a tumultuous start to a Harris presidency.
The advantage of having a partner for this dance is that you can anticipate your moves upon arrival. This is a dilemma that Democrats would certainly welcome.
Mathilde Moreau contributed to this report for TROIB News
